Who is more violent, right or left?

Right now there’s a post up at Daily Kos entitled “30 Years of Right Wing Violence in Pictures.” If you read it top to bottom it certainly makes the case that there is plenty of right wing hatred in this country, and it’s far from complete. Certainly some right wingers will rightfully protest that these are nutjob acts which are not representative. Others will counter-attack with a litany of “you too’s” and even argue that some of these people are inherently left wing (Hitler was a liberal afterall).

Their youtoo’s might not be quite as numerous over the last 30 years (the Brinks robbery and a handful of other post-Weathermen acts in the early 1980s and the dubious example of the guy who took hostages over environmental concerns some months ago). But if you take it back 40 years you have the Weathermen themselves (though they never actually killed anybody but three of their own by accident), the BPP, the SLA, and less persuasively the Manson murders and Jonestown (which of course didn’t happen within the borders).

And if we go back 50 years we argue whether Lee H. Oswald was a left winger or some sort of agent/patsy of a larger conspiracy, and then over the course of a decade a string of the left wingers leaders were violently killed (MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dow Wilson, Lloyd Green, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner). The only right wing leader I can think of who was killed at the time was George Lincoln Rockwell who was offed by one of his fellow Nazis. Of course, you can look at each of these killings and argue that the motivation was not right wing ideology and perhaps not ideology at all. But then we had the institutional violence in which BPP members were killed without provocation, and students were killed at Kent State and Jackson State. Many leftists did feel that it was open season on them, and that may partly account for the left wing violence of the late 60s and early 70s. Whether justified objectively, left wingers are feeling the same way right now, and in tough economic times it’s unsettling. Even before Obama was elected, a Fox News fan attacked a Unitarian Church in Kentucky, killing two and wounding others, having decided that morning to go out and “hunt liberals” and knowing where to find them. And as the Kos post points out, we have a string of anti-abortion killings and attacks, though the anti-abortion groups have not been placed on the terror list along with radical environmental groups (whose body count remains at zero).

Now, we’re arguing whether the most recent acts of violence should be attributed to something inherent in right wing ideology or in the rhetorical climate of the Fox News/talk radio era. In the most recent discussions, Michelle Malkin posted a list of left wing rhetorical moments which were certainly alarming, but none of which came from mainstream prominent left wing figures, and there is merit to the left argument that it is the Republican leadership which is generating a poison climate which may or may not give the wacko fringe elements a sense of mandate and legitimacy. It is also true that some of the accusations have been overblown and unfair. Palin’s cross-hairs were not productive in terms of legitimate debate, but she was not responsible for the attack in Tucson. Nor to be frank was Rep. Giffords’ irresponsible election opponent. Nobody really knows what sets violence off, and while it is fair to demand less rhetorical extremity in an abundance of caution and personal responsibility, I really do believe that we should also limit our use of terms like “hate speech” so that they don’t lose meaning in knee-jerk partisanship.

The answer to the post title question is that the question itself is pointless; as is the hair splitting over body counts, definitions, and often futile attempts to ascertain any kind of meaningful or coherent motivation in senseless acts. Is the ideology really the motivating factor, or does it just provide a psychological back-drop for a psychosis which is going to result in violence regardless?

On the other hand, in all other countries, when a political figure is killed, it’s considered assassination and political motivation is presumed. In this country, it’s always some alleged lone nut, no matter how much the killing benefits political opposition. But even if there is political motivation, is it fair to blame the ideology itself and link all its adherents to the killing? (That was a rhetorical question). Is Diane Feinstein’s moderation responsible for the Moscone/Milk killings because a right-of-center Democrat prevented her from becoming a mere footnote in SF political history? Was Nixon’s ideology responsible because Bobbie Kennedy’s death all but assured his ascendancy? Would it have been fair to tie Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressivism to the anarchist killing of his predecessor?

The vast majority of left wingers and right wingers believe in peaceful if heated exchanges of ideas, and most of those who talk in violent terms don’t mean it literally. And both sides of the spectrum contain zealots, ruthless opportunists, and troubled individuals who use the ideology as an excuse. Whether one is more prone to the acts probably depends on the circumstances of the moment in history – which side is feeling more disenfranchised, how deeply they feel, how high they perceive the stakes, and yes, whether the leadership is excusing or implicitly condoning acts outside of what is reasonable. There’s no score to keep, because it’s not something that can be quantified or measured. The reasonable answer to the question is “we don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.”

25 comments

I searched in vain for a statement I could try to refute, but your even-handedness has restrained me. At times, these “right” and “left” distinctions become meaningless. What are we to make of Alexander Cockburn, for example, who is so far to the left that he supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — and who now argues against man-made global warming and has compared American militias (almost always right-wing) to the Zapatistas? Or Gore Vidal, who had far too many kind words to say about Timothy McVeigh (“very intelligent,” “an exaggerated sense of justice”)? As the French say: “Les extremes se touchent.”

Eric, you should really just speak for yourself.The reasonable answer to the question is “we don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.”
The “reasonable answer” is defined by YOU? You judge, jury and a wannabe mini-god all in one now? You just defined here, in your blog comment, the internal actions of a low-key revolution, American-style suicide bombers and all.

Thank you for this thoughtful piece. I don’t think the majority of people on the right or left want to see others harmed. We often say stupid things in the heat of an argument. The internet tends to increase the intensity of disagreements because we will say things anonymously to other we would never dare say face to face. A provocative position on an issue does not make you one of the bomb throwers that tend to inhabit the far ends of most political spectrums. As a fiscal conservative and advocate of personal responsibility I resent being categorized as a right wing nut if I happen to agree with a Tea Party concern over government spending. So let us have a healthy debate based on ideas and drop some of the inflammatory stuff. As much fun as that can be, it is a lazy way to debate.

Which may be part of the reason we’ve seen less left-wing violence in this country, at least in recent decades, while violence that is directed at the targets of the right-wing screechers (Muslims, liberals, doctors who provide abortions, etc.) does seem to be occuring with alarming frequency these days.

Wow Eric, assuming you haven’t plagiarized(have you?), this is the best thought out blog you’ve written in my admittedly fallible memory.

And what gives here? No rock n’ roll lyrics to obscure incomplete illthought ideas and lack of definitive references. Did they already reduce the flouride in Redway water, or what?

Personally I think conservatives are more likely to be violent because they are used to being ‘normative’ so any impending challenge feels especially ominous to them. Liberals are more acclimated to being disenfranchised and therefore tend to see new oppressions as same ole’ same ole’ and are less likely to react to it. But my worldview has a dynamic aspect that sees conservatives and liberals respectively as merely defenders and challengers of the status quo, not as holding fixed ideologies.

I know that it makes some people out there crazy that I try to see things from an unbiased and neutral position. My neutral position only gets me labeled as part of “the other side” no matter how neutral I try to remain. From an unbiased standpoint, I noticed that the liberals point out the terrible “terrorist attacks” against abortion clinics.

“we have a string of anti-abortion killings and attacks, though the anti-abortion groups have not been placed on the terror list.”

Yet a conservative would probably point out that killing an unborn fetus is murder most foul, and that there have been far more abortions than abortion clinic attacks. So, from a conservative standpoint I would imagine that they see the liberals as the biggest problem, but there is a visa-versa view.

Eric is obviously a liberal in this post, and I would imagine most of the people that agree with this post are liberals. No matter how much I abhor abortion, I do however agree, that abortion should be a personal decision only between the people directly involved. I guess that makes me a liberal, in the eyes of a conservative, but a conservative in the eyes of a liberal. It’s often said that trying to remain in the middle of the road will only get you run over.

That’s the problem, Ernie. “Yet a conservative would probably point out that killing an unborn fetus is murder most foul” is an extremist view yet that is a mainstream view in the far right and the litmus test for the majority in the GOP. That is also the view from the mainstream right media. That’s a lot of validation from important people to justify terrorist acts against abortion clinics, essentially encouraging it.

Ernie – I suppose that would be regarded as a holocaust and certainly it would “justify” the dozen or so deaths and however many maimings over the past decade and a half. But then we killed two to three million in Vietnam, and the Weathermen saw themselves as in the trenches trying to save those lives. The bottom line for most of us is that abortion is a lawful procedure, and therefor the use of violence to intimidate the practitioners could fairly be called terrorism.

In any case it is violence which comes from right wingers and is primarily directed at liberals who have broken no law. The earnestness of the aggressors is beside the point. Obviously they all believe they’re justified.

There is a third violent element. They dwell in the world of conspiracy and paranoia. At places like Waco and then Oklahoma City what went down defies simply left or right. I heard this guy on thank jah rerun the truly stupid idea that Bush was really behind 911. That the WTC towers were brought down by planted explosives blah blah blah. When the L.A.P.D. burned the SLA in there hideout who’s “right”.

Well, yeah, I only touched on the institutional violence. The SLA massacre, Fred Hampton, MOVE – plenty of examples of government violence the degree of which was at best questionable and possibly ideologically motivated.

All in all we’re pretty savage. We can tell ourselves whatever is necessary to release the violence that is simmering beneath our civilized exteriors. Humans just can’t take the anxiety and stress of working through difficulties. When the frustration and fear becomes too much, we jump up screaming: “War!”
It’s so much easier to deal with an instant, adrenalin-filled combat; than a long, intense day in-day out, working out of problems.

Eric, “at best questionable and possibly ideologically motivated.”
Any old excuse will justify any obscenity, right? Maybe you should try to understand, as you walk that fence, that what you “sow you also shall reap.” That means for everyone that merely “thinks” or in most cases, “believes” as so-called “free American’s” they have a choice. You gave up that right with your very first judgment and lying accusation. For those of you that don’t know what that means, the first time you registered to vote.

Something else for you to consider as you engage Branscomb. He says:
“I try to see things from an unbiased and neutral position.”
His writings and lifetime history make that statement a total fabricated pipe-dream. He wouldn’t make an “unbiased and neutral” pimple on my ass.

Eric, Did you not say this?
“Well, yeah, I only touched on the institutional violence. The SLA massacre, Fred Hampton, MOVE – plenty of examples of government violence the degree of which was at best questionable and possibly ideologically motivated.”
What are you talking about here? Justifiable killings by authorities?
“An excuse for whom?” Who am I talking to? My comment is addressed to YOU and no one else.

First this is NOT about agreeing with anyone. I DO NOT write comments on your blog to get you or anyone else to AGREE with me. If you can’t understand what I say, that’s your problem not mine. But, since you asked the question, tell me if these words are not a pass or “justify” the governments actions? No “you” didn’t kill anyone, but YOUR government did and you justify their actions with words of “questionable at best, etc.” That’s the blessing and the curse of participating in a Democracy.

You ask “An excuse for whom”? YOU, that’s who. You made the comment, NOT I. All I did was lay out your worthless excuses and highlight the consequences of such an offensive attitude.

Like I’ve told you before, no one understood Jesus Christ either. So I guess you and Branscomb put me in good company. Thank you.

By the way, when you consider the ongoing conversations I’ve had on the blog, it is amusing to see how Branscomb is unable to see how hypocritical and farcical that last statement is.